Time Team dig for Henry III's lost sacristy at Westminster Abbey
Renia
Westminster Abbey must be the grandest of them all.
Largely built by Henry III in the 13th century, the Abbey is a
centrepiece of British history and was the burial place of royalty for
500 years.
Our goal over the three days was to relocate the lost medieval sacristy
of Henry III. This would have housed the many treasures of the Abbey and
its location was a mystery."
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/time-team/articles/westminster-dig-report
John Briggs
> "Time Team have dug at some of Britain's most famous buildings, but
> Westminster Abbey must be the grandest of them all.
>
> Largely built by Henry III in the 13th century, the Abbey is a
> centrepiece of British history and was the burial place of royalty for
> 500 years.
>
> Our goal over the three days was to relocate the lost medieval sacristy
> of Henry III. This would have housed the many treasures of the Abbey and
> its location was a mystery."
They actually found what was at best a vestry, and at worst a corridor.
They also seemed to think that the nave of Edward's church was "Norman".
--
John Briggs
Renia
Yes, they ignored Mick's theory, that the lost vestry was over the other
side.
Renia
er, lost sacristy.
John Briggs
Which side was that? North-East or South-East?
(The next time I see Warwick Rodwell I'll try and ask for his side of
the story!)
--
John Briggs
Renia
South east.
John Briggs
Yes, I'd agree with that.
--
John Briggs
Renia
Why?
John Briggs
It's the normal position for a sacristy. Especially as the monastery is
on the south side of the abbey church in this case. Take the sacristy at
Salisbury cathedral, for example. On the other hand, that part is
particularly cramped, and the radiating chapels get in the way. In the
circustances, the use of St Faith's chapel as the secure sacristy is the
only sensible option.
--
John Briggs
Renia
More or less what the colourful Mick said.
John Briggs
I tuned in late and missed that bit.
--
John Briggs
Paul J Gans
Somebody will have to explain to me how you lose a sacristy.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
John Briggs
Well, first (a) you demolish it, and then (b) forget where it was.
--
John Briggs
James Beck
Pretty easily. It's often just a storage space by one or more of the
entrances. Rooms like that are often repurposed. Sometimes they're
sealed up. A generation later, they're forgotten.
Renia
You demolish it and build something else in its place!
Surreyman
> Paul J Gans wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I too only saw parts - but got the impression that, instead, they'd
actually discovered the first-ever seen remains of the pre-Edward
Saxon cathedral? If so, quite a result.
It's a common sequence in long-established UK religious sites - our
own village church has the same.
Renia
I find watching Time Team so relaxing, I dozed off in time for the
conclusion, but they did seem to have located parts of the original
Saxon cathedralo.
John Briggs
No. What they found were A-S graves which were on a different alignment,
and pre-dated Edward's church. They weren't part of the earlier church,
and weren't early enough to show that there was an abbey before the time
of St Dunstan.
And Westminster Abbey was only a cathedral between 1540 and 1556.
--
John Briggs
Paul J Gans
Hmm. I guess that works.
Paul J Gans
Sure. I had assumed that Westminster Abbey would have had some
ground plans that survived. A number do, but certainly not every
abbey or cathedral's did.
Paul J Gans
We humans have the awful habit of building things right on top
of the most interesting archaeological sites.
I mean some older folk had the good grace to go extinct or at
least move out of their home areas. Take Knossos as an example.
But western Europe? Not a bit of it. There ought to be a law.
John Briggs
This is a truly mysterious statement! For just about all medieval
building, the evidence is the surviving structure. As Westminster Abbey
is pretty well intact, any other evidence is truly secondary.
--
John Briggs
Renia
Your own statement is just as mysterious.
There are ground plans for Westminster Abbey, but not necessarily
contemporaneous with the time it was built. There are also plans which
include information from previous archaeological digs there.
Whether Westminster Abbey is "pretty well intact" is open to debate,
depending on which church, Abbey or period you are talking about.
It is known Henry III intended to build, or did build, a second
sacristy. It is not there now, therefore, the Abbey, from this period,
is not "pretty well intact", otherwise there wouldn't be digs to look
for it.
John Briggs
Really? And what date is the earliest?
> There are also plans which
> include information from previous archaeological digs there.
The documentation isn't all that one would wish for.
> Whether Westminster Abbey is "pretty well intact" is open to debate,
> depending on which church, Abbey or period you are talking about.
>
> It is known Henry III intended to build, or did build, a second
> sacristy. It is not there now, therefore, the Abbey, from this period,
> is not "pretty well intact", otherwise there wouldn't be digs to look
> for it.
Actually, these things aren't "known"
--
John Briggs
Renia
Couldn't say, but they were shown on the programme. Ask your friend!
> > There are also plans which
>> include information from previous archaeological digs there.
>
> The documentation isn't all that one would wish for.
Indeed, particuarly as previous archaeologists made mistakes.
>> Whether Westminster Abbey is "pretty well intact" is open to debate,
>> depending on which church, Abbey or period you are talking about.
>>
>> It is known Henry III intended to build, or did build, a second
>> sacristy. It is not there now, therefore, the Abbey, from this period,
>> is not "pretty well intact", otherwise there wouldn't be digs to look
>> for it.
>
> Actually, these things aren't "known"
Documents were shown or referred to on the programme which showed
Henry's intention to build a second sacristy. I can't remember whether
documents were shown which show he actually did build one, but your
friend would know.
Paul J Gans
There are some for which the building plans (or copies thereof)
survive. There are more that have been carefully researched in
modern times, using all the usual equipment including side scanning
radar, etc.
I was, probably stupidly, assuming that that had been done at
Westminster Abbey, but am not surprised to find that I am wrong
about it.
John Briggs
I don't know of any building plans for British buildings earlier than
the 16th century (and late 16th century at that).
--
John Briggs
g.ga...@comcast.net
The Horny Goat
<g.ga...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > I was, probably stupidly, assuming that that had been done at
>> > Westminster Abbey, but am not surprised to find that I am wrong
>> > about it.
>> I don't know of any building plans for British buildings earlier than
>> the 16th century (and late 16th century at that).
>> --
>> John Briggs
>Is the recently discovered Sacristy where Time Team was looking?
Elizabethan era chapel of the Tower of London where they found
skeletons they BELIEVE based on condition of the skeleton (e.g.
beheaded) and DNA evidence MAY be the skeletons of Anne Boleyn and
Katherine Howard.
(No I haven't got a cite - just the word of the tour guide at the
Tower of London when visiting there in 2016)
The reign of Henry VIII is definitely mid but not late 16th C :)
though the Tower of London goes back several hundred more years than
that.
The Old Man
The one thing that I took away from that visit was when he showed us the Watergate, where convicted state prisoners were brought in for their execution, and mentioned that it was also known as the "Traitors' Gate".
It was an altogether excellent day spent there.
Regards,
John Braungart